Or pick Marco Rubio, the GOP’s most gifted young politician, the man who embodies what is best about the Tea Party and a vision of a broad-based Republican governing majority of the future. Barack Obama was right about this (if only this): Modern democratic politics is about hope and change. Ryan and Rubio, more than anyone else, embody Republican hopes and conservative change.

137 comments:

Ah, I just read this article and linked it on another blog. Rubio is my pick and Ryan could help gain control of spending and the deficit. As for the criticism about his inexperience, he has held more meaningful jobs and delivered, than the guy sitting in the WH right now. And he can give an inspiring speech without a teleprompter.

With rare exceptions, a VP does nothing for the presidential candidate and usually hurts them. The only exception I can think of is Sarah Palin, who made McCain more palatable to many who voted for him.

With this in mind Ryan would be a disaster. Rubio would be a draw, but I think he'd be more effective for Romney to be left in Congress.

MITT's pick will not matter. No one - I mean, on one - can defeat the greatest and the best POTUS Obama. Why? Just ask: NYT, NPR, HuffPost, DailyBeast, etc. You have no idea what our friends in the Press will do to support us. No idea. Just no idea.

This is our election. This is our WH. We will be there till Jan. 2017. GOP cannot do anything. Mitt cannot do anything.

Forget you. You should, instead, join us. Be part of the destiny. Be proud. Have a story to tell your grand-kids. Join us. Come support and contribute our campaign. Tonight we meet at the Oval Room after 8pm. Join us, won't you?

Since it's registered voters, half of whom won't show up on election day, I'd say every state where he's 53 (in this survey) or under should be considered in play (yeah, I know...,) simply because of the MOE (8, in some cases) .

PPS Ras has the race at 46/44 in favor of the Romster, which may be bad news for Zero.

Ryan is needed in Congress and he doesn't have any executive experience, Rubio doesn't either and hasn't been around long enough to be fully vetted. I don't think Rubio would help with the Hispanic vote either because he is Cuban and the liberal media hate the Cubans because they are anti communists, just imagine the hostile stories about him from the corrupt liberal media. They would destroy him just like they destroyed Sarah Palin's reputation.

Mitch Daniels has excellent personal reasons not to run. Ryan would be the pick that threw down the gauntlet to Obama and made the election a debate about the future. If Romney's inside polling shows him comfortably ahead at the convention, he may choose a dull white male. If it is close, Ryan may be asked. He says he doesn't want it but will take it if asked. Rubio is very young and would be better for another four years of experience.

I still say Romney will win by a landslide. The polls are being manipulated by a compliant liberal media and pollsters to make it appear that the race is closer than it is. Not only that but people don't want to tell an anonymous pollster that they're not going to vote for Obama because they don't to be thought of as prejudice.

I don't think you concern is real. The 14th Amendment says if he was born here and resided here, he is a citizen. The same applied to Obama although his grandparents may have brought him back from Indonesia to be sure he fulfilled residency requirements.

Rubio also LIED about his family leaving Cuba timeline. The NYT will have a front-page story on it for days Then NPR will take over. We will destroy Rubio the next day he is announced? We will make him Palin's Palin candidate. Ryan will be made a a rich-guy discriminating against ordinary Americans. The irony is that Romney has no choice for VP. He wishes that he did not have select. This is because GOP has no bench. End of your fantasy. Give up. Join us.

I don't think you concern is real. The 14th Amendment says if he was born here and resided here, he is a citizen. The same applied to Obama although his grandparents may have brought him back from Indonesia to be sure he fulfilled residency requirements."

You have no clue. The 14th Amendment does not define natural born Citizen. It is a vehicle of naturalization. Natural born Citizens are born in the US of US Citizen parents, and need no naturalization. If one is born of resident aliens, like Rubio or Jindal, the SCOTUS has held (in Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, 693) that they are US Citizens due to the natural law concept of Inhabitance. Since the parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the US due to their permanent domicile, then the child would be also, and that child would be a citizen of the US, but not a natural born Citizen eligible to be President, because that child would also be subject to the jurisdiction of his parents native country.

Unlike McCain in 08, there's no reason for Romney to go long. So maybe Portman's the smart choice. However, I like both Ryan and Rubio. Between the two, I'd pick Rubio because his ethnicity might dampen the MSM attacks a little bit, and because Florida's a big state that Romney needs to carry, and because Ryan is perceived as more a single-issue candidate (albeit it is THE issue).

"Unlike McCain in 08, there's no reason for Romney to go long. So maybe Portman's the smart choice. However, I like both Ryan and Rubio. Between the two, I'd pick Rubio because his ethnicity might dampen the MSM attacks a little bit, and because Florida's a big state that Romney needs to carry, and because Ryan is perceived as more a single-issue candidate (albeit it is THE issue)."

Rubio is not a natural born Citizen. His nomination will be challenged.

Those of us who live in Indiana know that Mitch Daniels is not a conservative.

Marco Rubio just demonstrated that he too does not have conservative stripes with his idiotic proposal not to tax Olympians for their prizes/medals. Besides, why are we looking to remove Republican Senators when we do not yet have a majority?

Leave Ryan in the House and make him Mr. Speaker.

Folks, that leaves us with Bobby Jindal as the logical conservative choice.

Walker is a non-starter ie he has a legal defensefund in case he gets indicted. Which doesn't look good on a v-p resume lol.

Rubio is a non-starter as he is still totally confused re: how and why his parents came to America. Plus he was against AZ's immigration law before he was for it ie he's just an all-around confused pup! Not ready for prime time.

"Those of us who live in Indiana know that Mitch Daniels is not a conservative.

Marco Rubio just demonstrated that he too does not have conservative stripes with his idiotic proposal not to tax Olympians for their prizes/medals. Besides, why are we looking to remove Republican Senators when we do not yet have a majority?

Leave Ryan in the House and make him Mr. Speaker.

Folks, that leaves us with Bobby Jindal as the logical conservative choice."

Neither Jindal nor Rubio are eligible, since both were born dual citizens of foreign resident alien parents. Obama was also born British of a British subject father, and may be British to this day (perpetual allegiance), and is certainly not natural born.

You know I agree with you on Zero, but while I originally had the same thought about Rubio as you sated, the "natural born citizen" only applies to the president. I might be wrong about that, I ain't a lawyer.

Now if something happened to Romney after he becomes pre4sident, I can see a problem.

Ps,

Nice to see the lib's finally admitting how in the tank for Zero the media really is...Kudos for telling the truth AP!

"You know I agree with you on Zero, but while I originally had the same thought about Rubio as you sated, the "natural born citizen" only applies to the president. I might be wrong about that, I ain't a lawyer".

The 12th Amendment says that the VP must have the same qualifications as the POTUS.

I am constantly mesmerized by listening to Ryan speak about the deficit and the atomic bomb of future debt. I would like to see him be VP, but instead of being a do-nothing VP, have him out there speaking constantly.

"Mick - the problem with you posing as an armchair Constitutional expert is that the REAL experts on immigration and naturalization law find your opinion laughable.

Worse for you, the general public and substantial majorities of both Democrats and Republicans find your claims laughable.

And even worse for you, precedent exists in court findings on McCain and George Romney...among others who have ran ...meeting the requirements to be natural born citizens.

The country is in trouble. Can you not find something more constructive to focus on...Or failing that, pick a new anal fixation..one less boring and tedious than your current anal fixation???"

The "real experts" are covering for the massive treason that has already been committed. Besides that your comment is full of untruths (as usual). There were no "court findings" that G. Romney or McCain were eligible. Both were born of US Citizen parents in foreign territory. G. Romney certainly was not natural born. McCain needed US Code 8 s. 1403 (birth to US citizen parents in the PCZ) to become a US Citizen, but according to Vattel, those born of parents in Armies of the state would be natural born Citizens. He could have asked for a Declaratory Judgment from the SCOTUS, but instead he participated in the charade to cover for Obama by Resolution 511, which is no court, and has no precedent in law.

Obama was born British, of a British subject father, and due to the principle of perpetual allegiance inherent to British subjects, is a British subject to this very day. His allegiance is clearly not to this country, and your attitude is why it's allowed to happen. You participate in treason.

De Souza talked about that also. Obama is EXACTLY whom the framers were preventing from the office. Clearly his allegiance is lacking. Why do you think he sent the bust of Churchill back. He resents the fact that he was born, and still is, British.

They tried to teach wide receiver Rubio to run into the other country's endzone after he caught the anchor baby but he always ran it into his own country's endzone...so they made him part of management.

Mick, when I went throught the Hoover birthplace/library in Iowa last year, they had an exhibit on the childhood (and college) of Presidents Coolidge through Bush 43. With the exception of Roosevelt and Kennedy's blueblood background, I was amazed at how normal their childhoods were.

Very American. School plays and bands. Boy scouts. Swimmers, football and baseball players. Driving themselves in old used cars to college. Summer camps. First jobs in their communities. Marching in 4th of July parades. Military service.

Then look at Obama, growing up in Indonesia, raised by an Atheist, Marxist mother. Then on the beaches of Hawaii, smoking pot with this friends instead of working.

OF COURSE, THE BIG PROBLEM FOR GOP is that they do not have the Bench.

There is no woman ready and willing to the VP. Palin, do not make me laugh.

This is why the Democrats will win. You cannot win if you will discriminate against women. GOP due to their choice litmus test discriminate against women. GOP must change if they want to win in 2016. Forget now, as no one can beat POTUS Obama. NO ONE. NOT A SOUL.

Romney could pick Mother Theresa and she would still be savaged by the msm--The Dem strategy, imo, will be to change the focus of the campaign to the VP nominee to take the heat off the many failings of the Obama administration and their stewardship of the economy.

In times past, the VP nominee (the VP position not being worth a cold bucket of piss in Garner's words) was to try to gain geographical support for the ticket; eg, LBJ in Texas for JFK. I think that model has changed considerable in the last two generations.

Hey AP, does the fact that the American people have lost almost 40% of their net worth in the last 3 1/2 years, in your most thoughtful opinion will that have even the slightest effect on the election results? I await some really inspired horseshit from you should you deign to lie,er...answer.

"Then look at Obama, growing up in Indonesia, raised by an Atheist, Marxist mother. Then on the beaches of Hawaii, smoking pot with this friends instead of working".

All of his life he was raised by, mentored by, and friends with Marxists, Communists, domestic terrorists, and racists, yet "smart" people voted for him, including Jews against their own self interest, and "law profs". Something else is at play here. Now the Nobel winner is openly aiding the Syrian resistance, which includes the Muslim bros and al queda. Press silent.

I will be voting for Romney.. But there are times when I hope Obama wins. He needs to be around when folks are forced to start buying health insurance or pay the tax.. Right now everyone thinks that they will be getting free stuff..

Aridog said...I plan on ducking the brick bats to follow, but here goes....

Allen West for VP. Or Herman Cain. The VP candidacy historically is as junk yard dog. West or Cain would be perfect, and both a more qualified for office that the current WH occupant.====================Both are controversial.Cain is a lost cause.West could become a credible person in the long haul, but has just two yearsin political office and a long trail of controversial things said.

LOOK THIS IS NOT ABOUT ROMNEY NEEDING TO PICK A RIGHTWING FIREBRAND TO EXCITE THE BASE.

The rightwing, religious base is excited enough to turn out in huge numbers just because they hate Obama. They do not need someone that wants 3 new wars launched or who doesn't believe in evolution or that Israel is always right because God chose the Likud people...Not to get big conservative turnout. The uber-rich do not need new tax cuts to turn out to vote against Obama. They are doing fine without more largesse tossed their way.

It is about the need of Republicans to appeal to people in the middle of the political spectrum. And someone that can communicate well that this is about a choice between socialism and prosperity.

Look, EVERYONE, you are forgetting the message from our best and greatest campaign HQ in Chicago:

- YOU DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE HORSE IN MID-STREAM.- YOU CANNOT TRUST A MORMON OR A BUSINESSMAN WHO DOES NOT PAY TAXES OR HIDES OVERSEAS- YOU CANNOT TRUST A PARTY THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN- ETC., etc.

This is the message that WE are advising the WH since last fall. We know what it takes to defeat the GOP. Trust me, WE KNOW.

GOP cannot win. It cannot hide. There are no easy tickets to win. Romney/Ryan or Romney/Pawlenty. They both will go down. We have been feeding NYT, Washington-Post, NPR, etc. so much over the years, that they are going to do what we tell them. It is that simple.

ashiv.......yes, that's the problem. Ryan knows it. You and I do. People think Obamacare is about free stuff. They think Medicare/caid is about free stuff. Few can even tell us how many zeros are in the 100 Trillion dollor unfunded liability in Big Entitlement.

I'd love to see Dr Rice as running mate--she would, however, be pilloried over her time in the Bush Administration, and worse yet, buying shoes in NYC during Katrina. And we could always have the racist cartoons of her as the black mammy eating watermelon on the plantation, and "brown sugar" a la the excrable gary trudeau.

Intelligent, ver strong in foreign policy, Russian expert and speaks Russian (vice Austrian), knows the difference from the Falklands/Malvinas and Maldives, and given there is that matter of Mr Putin to deal with she would be, imo, a ready to take over VP. Her selection would not, however, stop the MSM slime machine

Per Joe's suggestion re Christie, Christie also would serve a traditional role of the VP as an attack dog. He definitely does not shy away from conflict, and even seems to welcome it. (isnt he keynoting the Republican Convention?)

This election is about race. The Democratic Party's death grip on black voters is redoubled by BO's skin color. Nevermind that he's not even as black as Bill Clinton. With a big part of the electorate politics is just a skin game.

It's a simple, shallow and dirty game. The simplest way to divide into tribes that there is. Democrats are using it to sit on everyone's head. Republicans have got to play or have their nuts handed to them again.

To split off some small fraction of non-white voters Romney needs Rice. Evidently he's not going to get her - which is a damned shame because she scares the living shit out of BO. Unless Rice surprises everyone, he's got to pick Rubio. Two white guys will flounder.

"Would be hard to imagine Republicans would want to run on the Ryan Plan and VoucherCare this election. "

I know it is hard for a leftist Democrat to imagine that the country is ready to face the coming Armageddon in finance. Maybe they aren't ready. I think it would be courageous for Romney to take this fight right inside the citadels of ignorance relied upon by the left.

Thank you. I presume you are a potential nominee for the USSC ? You certainly disagree with most constitutional experts I have heard from./"

Any "Con Law expert" that says Obama is eligible is either wrong, threatened to shut up, a coward, or so politicized that the Constitution does not matter. Besides, I know much more about this subject than them anyway. Perpetual allegiance was done away with by the Declaration of Independence (1776), and suspended for those that resided in America at the time of the Treaty of Peace (1783). At that time the right of election, and law of nations, became the basis of US international law (see Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, page 126). Those born in America of British subjects are British, and not natural born. Obama was born British, of a British subject father, and is British to this day. You think the framers would be OK w/ that?

At the time the Constitution was ratified (1789) ALL US Citizens were eligible for President. That is the point in time described by A2S1C4--- those residing in the colonies were US Citizens, and were naturalized by the ratification. Those born of those new citizens since the Declaration of Independence were the natural born Citizens, who needed no naturalization, but they were only 13 years old, so those that were resident in the colonies in 1789, and thus naturalized were eligible. There was no other naturalization law.

In 1802 anyone born of Obama's or Rubio's or Jindal's circumstance (alien parents)would have been considered an alien, until the naturalization of their parents in the child's minority. Therefore, since A2S1C4 has never been amended, they certainly cannot be natural born Citizens today. Obama's father was not even a resident, so he again is certainly not eligible.

Michael K.....I think it is time for the Republicans to run on this issue. I'd rather have them run on the oncoming bankruptcy of our country and lose, then bury their head in the sands and pandor to the ecomonically illiterate.

Ryan has a plan that, while painful, is better than bankruptcy. Which will lead to much more painful cuts and economic issues.

Just called a K-street contact (super one, actually). She said that we have all kinds of variations on responses no matter what Romney selects. Basically I am told to not worry. She said: WH belongs to us till January 2017. "You cannot panic now, we are home free. GOP sucks. Just remember we have friends in press and in hollywood."

"You're a kook. Don't start with this natural born citizen nonsense. It is not the law.

Nobody accepts YOUR interpretation law.

Go comment somewhere else you stupid freak".

I wear the bleating of the stupid (you) as a badge of honor. There are lots of people that read this blog that are getting educated about the criminals in our government. Rubio and Jindal are put up as Conservative wonder boys, but they are criminals participating in the treason like all the rest. All they would have to do is proclaim that they will not be considered because they are not eligible. They would not even have to mention Obama. But they are cowards and certainly not patriots or statesmen.

"Mick--I wasnt addressing the validity of your argument; just the incessant repetition of the argument. You may well be right, but frankly I dont really care. It simply is not an issue to me".

I am certainly right, and no one here among the brilliant "lawyers" that may read this blog has EVER come close to proving me wrong. If you don't care then you participate in the destruction of the Constitution, and US Citizen sovereignty. You participate in the treason. When there is no legal president, then there is no law. Why do you think Corzine still walks free? By supporting Rubio or Jindal, you are participating in treason. I care. If you don't then you are the enemy of my children, and the constitution.

The PUTATIVE president. Massive treason was committed and protected by this government, whom the clarity of history will spit on. This is about power over we the people, but most are too dumb or apathetic to know it. That he is in office does not mean he is eligible, anymore that a man in a duck costume is a duck.

Mick--given your expertise in constitutional law with respect to eligility for POTUS, what is stopping you from bringing a lawsuit to challenge the eligibility issue? If you dont take action, why should I care? Babbling on on a blog doesnt constitute action. Just verbiage. Non verbis sed operis

"Mick--given your expertise in constitutional law with respect to eligility for POTUS, what is stopping you from bringing a lawsuit to challenge the eligibility issue? If you dont take action, why should I care? Babbling on on a blog doesnt constitute action. Just verbiage. Non verbis sed operis"

I have. So far they have illegally denied me standing, claiming that Obama was not "nominated or elected" in Fla. on Jan. 31, 2012. I have no illusions that the the judiciary is not compromised, but it is on appeal. I have standing as a voter to challenge the "nomination or election of any person to office", so the answer that Obama's lawyers made was not that he is eligible, but that he was not nominated or elected, and the judge, denied me standing on that point. That is the condition of the law, when there is no law, because of an illegal president. We are now a nation of men, not laws. Didn't expect that answer did you? And if you are a lawyer, then you should be ashamed-- just like the "law prof" should be.

It was sort of fun when The Donald and others pretended there was a serious question about whether Obama was a "natural born citizen" qualified to be president, and those of us who thought (and think) he's a terrible president might fantasize about his being ousted from office -- but we never took it seriously, if for no other reason than Joe Biden.

But now we have a birther squared who says that two of the bright young lights of the Republican Party are ineligible to be Vice President or President because their parents were aliens. Rubio and Jindal were born in the US to (as I understand it) legal immigrants. They were US citizens when they were born.

The Congressional Research Service reviewed the law on this just last year and concluded:

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term 'natural born' citizen wouldmean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being bornabroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements forU.S. citizenship 'at birth.'"

Let's get back to the more "serious" question of picking a VP for President Romney.

The Congressional Research Service reviewed the law on this just last year and concluded:

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term 'natural born' citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship 'at birth.'"

Nonsense, first of all the CRS is certainly not "unbiased" they certainly have a political agenda to destroy the sovereignty of US Citizens, and I will post an essay detailing a specific example of that. A proven in your face lie that they tell in a Government GPO publication. Who is Jack MCaskell anyway? Why should anyone believe him? His assumption is easily proven false by the simple laws of statutory construction, i.e Lawyer 101.

First, if the framers would have meant "born a US Citizen" then that's what they would have written. The plain wording of the statute is the first determinant of meaning. As a matter of FACT "born a US Citizen" was suggested (by Alexander Hamilton, who wrote Federalist #68) and REJECTED in favor of "natural born Citizen". Second, a construction of a statute that voids or moots a related statute is an "inadmissable argument" )see Marbury v. Madison, among many others. If a "born citizen" of the 14th Amendment is the same as a natural born Citizen of A2S1C4 then A2S1C4 is moot. The 14th Amendment is purely a vehicle of naturalization. Those born in the US can be considered US Citizens at birth by the "laws of the US", i.e they are deemed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and thus US Citizens by the "laws of the US". Natural born Citizens are born in the US of US Citizen parents, what else would they be? It is impossible that they are subject to the jurisdiction of any other foreign power--- they are natural born Citizens of the Constitution, needing NO NATURALIZATION. Judicial jurisdiction covers 3 separate areas of US law, The Constitution, the laws of the US and Treaties (see A3S2C1). That one is naturalized at birth is by the laws of the US, not the Constitution. Only those who were residents of the US in 1789 were naturalized by the Constitution.

Natural born Citizen is a term of art, and by the law of statutory construction adoption of a term of art is tantamount to adopting the entire body of law it is contained in. It doesn't say natural born SUBJECT, it says natural born CITIZEN, a term of art of natural law and law of nations. Lo and behold, right there in A1S8C10, Congress shall punish violations against the "law of nations."

“where a phrase in a statute appears to have become a term of art . . . , any attempt to break down the term into its constituent words is not apt to illuminate its meaning.” Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 483 (1990)

"Natural Allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience finds no countenance in the law of nations, and is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that rule of law." Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 231

"The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled by the Revolution." Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2, pg. 1280 (Cushing was a member of the first Supreme Court)

"[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adoptsthe cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such a case, absence of contrarydirection may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as departure from them. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). See also Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990) (“We assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation”)."

Proof that the CRS is not "non partisan".http://www.scribd.com/doc/98909804/Proof-That-the-Congressional-Research-Service-is-Not

I think that disproves your silly argument, and shows Jack Mcaskell to be the liar he is. There is no such thing as a dual citizen at birth being a natural born Citizen. Any Republican supporting Jindal or Rubio is just as bad as Obama.

they don't have a "budget" plan out there front and center like a big fat juicy roast TURKEY.

Democrats are so bizarre. How depressing that this is what politics amounts to for them.

Gleefully attacking a politician who dares to propose a serious, responsible, prudent budget, which takes into account the actual reality of our country's fiscal situation. A reality that should concern every citizen-- especially those that care anything about the generations after them, their children and grandchildren. None of that matters: all they see is a political target ripe for demagoguery and fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, they champion a party which for three years running has passed no budget at all.

Bender, like it or not, politics is the art of the possible. A fire-breathing politician who says all the things you'd like to hear but at the end of the day has absolutely no effect on actual legislation, is worth nothing. Like it or not, half the country is composed by people like garage and leslyn. Like it or not, that's the political reality in which politicians must maneuver.

I thank god politicians like Ryan exist. A politician who actually take his duties as a public servant to heart, who's trying hard to do the right thing for his country, a most critical and essential thing-- caring for its fiscal health (at a time when countries around the world are in grave, near-death crisis)-- even though that involves tackling politically tricky stuff, which will be hyperbolically demagogued and demonized. And he's remarkably intelligent and articulate to boot. I don't know if he's the right pick for VP, but I appreciate him a lot and wish him a long productive career.

Wait--They're good theocratists...but they don't have a "budget" plan out there front and center like a big fat juicy roast TURKEY.

Oh pick Ryan!

I'm leaning more in the direction of Kink Friedman.Why? Because VP really doesn't matter and it would piss off the jew hating left and C4.Ride Jewboy! Ride!And he's entertaining in a purposeful way. Not in the batshit stupid way of the guy we have now.

This is the big lie told by the CRS, and published by the GPO as a 2002 analysis of the Constitution, in case you all did not read the essay I wrote. The road has been prepared for Obama's Usurpation for a long time.

Now to the BIG LIE at footnote (4) on page 1672. This is an explicit lie, not justa lie of omission, or of interpretation. The quote referred to is by Senator Howard,on page 2890 of the Congressional Globe, 1

st

session 39

th

Congress, 1866. Therethe debates before the ratification of the 14

th

Amendment are chronicled.

“(4)

The sponsor of the

language said: ‘‘This amendment which I have offered is

simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that everyperson born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United

States.’’ Id. at 2890.”

This is what it actually says:

“

The sponsor of the

language said: ‘‘This amendment which I have offered is

simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that everyperson born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction

,

is

by

natural law and national law

, a citizen of the United States.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners,aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or ministers accredited to the

United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Id., @ 2890

The entire meaning of the quote is changed, is it not? The CRS changed history,

and replaced “

is by natural law and national law”

, with

“…”

,

and left out the inconvenient next sentence.

Was the CRS paving the way for Obama? I don’t

know, but their denial of natural law as the basis of our National Law still goes ontoday. Senator Howard said specifically that the children of aliens are notincluded in US citizenship, contrary to what the CRS said here. Natural lawcertainly would not say that the child of an alien father is a citizen, and neither didthe proviso of the 4th Section of the Naturalization Act 1802.

So we've found the single issue that is most important to voters like Mick in this election. Someone notify the Romney campaign so they can address this issue. God forbid we'd further anger all the Micks in this country.

"The amounts of revenues and spending to be used in these calculations [by the Congressional Budget Office] for 2012 through 2022 were provided by Chairman Ryan and his staff. The amounts for 2023 through 2050 were calculated by CBO on the basis of growth rates, percentages of gross domestic product (GDP), or other formulas specified by Chairman Ryan and his staff."

For a prime example of how to tilt the odds in your favor, see the above. IOW, use loaded dice.

"On the revenue side, Ryan's budget revolves around locking down federal revenues to below 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). While this number is the average for the past 30 years, it has consistently lagged federal spending, resulting in the steep deficits we see today. In order to maintain this deficit-inducing level, Ryan's plan calls for cutting income taxes for high-income earners from today's top marginal rate of 35 percent to 25 percent. (Interestingly, the last time we saw federal budget surpluses, between 1998 and 2001, the top marginal rate was 39.6 percent.)"

"In exchange for these tax cuts, spending for the old, the young, the poor, and the sick would be lopped off by two-thirds. Ryan laments the notion that the current social safety net is a "hammock, lulling able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency."

What the Republican Party really needs is a stand-up guy like DWIGHT D EISENHOWER.

Instead, they have dweebs and obstructionists:

Meanwhile, [Democrats] champion a party which for three years running has passed no budget at all. No budget at all.

May I remind you that there are two houses of Congress, which have to pass a budget, and the party that votes them down starts with "R."

Oh, nevermind, I went back and read it. In short it sounds like cutting government spending, reigning back entitlements, and trying to keep our most productive citizens, job creation-wise, able to do that.

OH MY GAWD the HORROR!

Except that the most small-government/ fiscal-responsibility folks find Ryan's budget far more generous than they'd like it to be.

And Obama hasn't offered a budget yet, has he?

I sure wish that spending money I didn't have on stuff that will make my life better worked for me, but no matter how often I do it, thinking that *this time* the results will be different, because I'm not being *frivolous* and I'm not wasting money and I'm not spending on anything that's actually *optional*... that this time it will all work out.

"So we've found the single issue that is most important to voters like Mick in this election. Someone notify the Romney campaign so they can address this issue. God forbid we'd further anger all the Micks in this country".

If he picks an unconstitutional VP then he is just as bad as Obama, and I will challenge that nomination.